simonjrogers ([info]simonjrogers) wrote,
@ 2006-07-25 16:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:esoterrorists, gumshoe, pelgrane, playtesting

Esoterrorists

Robin D Laws has submitted the final draft of the forthcoming Pelgrane Press game, The Esoterrorists. My original brief was to create a set of investigation rules that aren't broken, and Robin's original proposal follows. He also proposed a default background for the ruleset. Most of the nitty-gritty didn't survive playtesting, but the original idea remains. I'll add more articles about the playtesting process which led to the final version in other article.


Concept: Elite investigators combat the plots of occult terrorists intent on shattering the population’s sense of collective reality.

 Mechanics: We replace the old Call of Cthulhu “one failed roll and the mystery grinds to a halt” syndrome with a resource management system.
 During character creation players choose their skills from a finely-delineated menu of investigative techniques. (Also a few broader adventuring skills like combat and so forth, but the emphasis is on different flavors of investigation.)
Examples: Forensic Pathology, Ballistics, Academic Research, Textual Analysis, Graphology, Interrogation, Charm, Intimidation.
Like Dying Earth, your ratings in each ability correspond to a number of points you have to spend on it.
However, rather than a reroll mechanism, the points you spend give you additional degrees of success on a skill attempt.
Having a skill in the first place assumes a certain base level of accomplishment. If you get to the right scene and try to use the skill, you always get at least a base success, which is enough to propel you further into the story, moving the group into the next scene.
So where in CoC you’d have a chance to find the Eldritch Tome containing the map to the basement, and roll Library to see if you do find it, in Esoterrorists a character with Academic Research automatically finds it. The scenario may also give you the option to spend points to enhance your success: 1 point might prevent the map from crumbling, so you don’t have to rely on your memory of it. 2 points might allow you to spot the marginalia written in the volume by the secondary villain, which gives you an edge in interrogating him when you catch him later in the scenario.
When facing active resistance (generally in the broader adventuring abilities, like Fighting or Acrobatics) you auction points to see who wins, with a coin toss adding a degree of unpredictability to the outcome.
Certain other successes in climactic situations may require that you have X number of points currently in your pool without requiring you to spend anything.




(Post a new comment)


[info]cavalorn
2006-07-25 04:29 pm UTC (link)
Welcome to the blogosphere, sir!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]simonjrogers
2006-07-25 04:44 pm UTC (link)
Thank you. I'm interested in your opinions, and will send you the final draft-off list.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rpmiller
2006-07-25 04:33 pm UTC (link)
Oh! This is good! We are getting ready to run a CoC game this Sunday, and I may just have to off this as a house rule! Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]simonjrogers
2006-07-25 04:45 pm UTC (link)
I commend your audacity and regret that the core mechanic is so easily snaffled.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rpmiller
2006-07-25 04:59 pm UTC (link)
I take the section in ever core book that says something to the effect of "do what you want, you're the GM" very much to heart. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ogadaga
2006-07-25 05:16 pm UTC (link)
This system sounds like it could bolt on to most other games.

(Reply to this)


[info]unseelie23
2006-07-25 06:00 pm UTC (link)
Not trying to be confrontational, but why do I need a sub-system that could be solved by better adventure design? The “one failed roll and the mystery grinds to a halt” problem wasn't a fault of the CoC rules so much as it's a fault of adventure design and GM experience.

Maybe I've been gaming too long and have too much of a DIY background to appreciate this, but really, if the players need to find something for the plot to continue, they should find it. Period.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]simonjrogers
2006-07-27 08:48 am UTC (link)
Let me preface this by saying I like playing CoC with BRP and other rules sets, even though it has problems.

It's interesting you should say this, because Robin's approach came out of a new approach to designing adventures. Better adventure design (and how to do it) is a central plank of the game. The game gives you explicity tools to structure mystery-based plots whilst giving the flexibility to improvise scenes.

It makes explicit what many GMs (such as you) do in their games. Each scene with an investigative element has a core clue which must be found, but instead of calling for a roll and then fudging it, you just give them what they need. You decide the core clue at the adventure creation stage.

CoC and other games usually call for some kind of a roll, which the GM makes secretly, but has to pretend the players make it any way.

I am an experienced GM, and I still found this system very useful. There was much less faffing around, and more pursuing leads and getting into conflict. You want players to get clues for the game to progress. In a pure CoC background, finding clues is the key to getting investigators into deeper and deeper trouble, which is where the fun is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]uthoroc
2006-07-26 07:33 am UTC (link)
An experienced GM and good adventure design can circumvent any problem.

It is nice though to have a system that concentrates on the core theme: Investigations. CoC takes a basic game system (BRP) and applies it to investigative scenarios. That approach necessarily has its weaknesses.

The Gumshoe system (as used in Esoterrorists) does it the other way around: It assumes investigative scenarios and designs a games system for that. It works better than CoC IMHO, simple as that.

(Reply to this)

Comments from IndieRPG Toronto Playtester
[info]epweissengruber
2006-07-26 12:00 pm UTC (link)
Dear Simon

I found the core mechanic useful but was concerned about side issues, such as the integration of character-created NPCs with the PCs (their role in refreshing pools) and the themes of the adventure.

"Concept: Elite investigators combat the plots of occult terrorists intent on shattering the population’s sense of collective reality."

- Is this treated as a mechanical matter?
- Can valued NPCs be affected by the degenerating reality?
- What advice can you give to GMs about making the degeneration of reality palpable to the players and part of scenarios/regular play


"... rather than a reroll mechanism, the points you spend give you additional degrees of success on a skill attempt ... The scenario may also give you the option to spend points to enhance your success: 1 point might prevent the map from crumbling, so you don’t have to rely on your memory of it. 2 points might allow you to spot the marginalia written in the volume by the secondary villain, which gives you an edge in interrogating him when you catch him later in the scenario.

- Our play test group loved the resource system
- But do all the expenditures need to be preset? Why can't the players contribute details in a way mediated by what they expend?" "Donjon" works this way, except it depends on chance rather than choice. Higher levels of success allow you to state more facts about a situation. So a Simple fact about the tome might be "There is a memo [in it]" and 2 facts might be "This memo [was] left recently." "Donjon" is fast and lose about the creation of facts and you might want to limit this feature so that a carefully structured mystery doesn't fall apart at the seams. But creation of detail and colour BY THE CHARACTERS was a very effective way to stimulate player participation AND control it: If a character really got off on describing an interrogation of an NPC they had to expend resources from their pool to make it happen. This led to the creation of some fun "Royale with Cheese" moments, ones that made the play interesting but not digressive.

[Like the resource system. Why is this the "scenario's" option. Why can't the players contribute details in a way mediated by what they expend?]

When facing active resistance (generally in the broader adventuring abilities, like Fighting or Acrobatics) you auction points to see who wins, with a coin toss adding a degree of unpredictability to the outcome.


Certain other successes in climactic situations may require that you have X number of points currently in your pool without requiring you to spend anything.

- Again, I like a system where resources allow players to state what they consider to be interesting and to help shape the shared imaginative space in a rule-goverened way
- In inter=player competition over the shaping of events it is nice to have the interaction governed by rules rather than success being determined by which player is most dogged about forcing his/her preferences down other players' throats.
- However, players approach bidding/auctions with finite resources whereas the GM has infinite resources. Proposal: Give the GM a finite amount of resources comparable to the pool of resources of all the players. In the long-run the GM may contribute resources to the resolution of conflicts but must pick his/her battles intelligently.

Keep up the work on the game. Can't wait to see (and buy) the finished product.

Erik

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Comments from IndieRPG Toronto Playtester
[info]simonjrogers
2006-07-26 12:11 pm UTC (link)
What you are describing is a great, but very different game to the one we've written. It's a more Forge-oriented version. The only nod to the kind of play you are talking about in Esoterrorists is that players can spend points and describe how they find the clues they want. Anything more than that is well outside the comfort zone of many roleplayers. The way adventures are structured and designed in Esoterrorists does not really support the style of play you want.

That said, the GUMSHOE system is designed to be a modular game with some modules working independently of others, and a set a of GUMSHOE rules where you are buying narrative power with your points for investigative abilities is in the pipeline, perhaps along the lines you suggest. This would be a game where all the players contribute to building the mystery (as opposed to just the GM), as well as solving the mystery (as opposed to just the players). I would expect you and your group would make a disproportionate contribution to the playtest of such a game.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…